53 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Try as I might...
.... I cannot see any possible reason to compare the Valdez spill to this natural occurence.
Except just to get in a dig at the "greenies".
The Alaskan lobster and other fishing industries suffered a huge financial blow from the oil spill.
click here to email
Spelling it out.
The comparison is obvious, which you also noted, they both involve "damage" to the immediate environment in which they are found, and they both involve damage to areas that are fisheries. I'm thinking the damage by the undewater volcano is killing off more marine life at the time than the oil spill did. What they don't have in common is the Exxon spill was closer to land and also involved land animals and bird life. In the main however both are ecological "disasters" that nature will and would have corrected within time.
The Point is the Valdez was avoidable, and nature isn't.
It has always been said that nature is a balance of forces, of creation and destruction. This post is about as sensible as saying the extinction event 65 million years ago was worse than the Exxon Valdez. Of course it was, and so was Krakatoa, and Mt St Helens and any number of naturally caused forest fires. But they're unavoidable. Mankind screwing up throws another log or two on that balance and inclines it the wrong way. And so many things that mankind does are tough on the environment.
I remember a little noticed article from the early 1970's that said if one ship loaded with Agent Orange had sunk in the Pacific in transit, and if the contents had been released it would have killed enough phyto plankton to seriously reduce world-wide oxygen levels and probably cause the extinction of many species including us. Fortunately it didn't happen.
Oil spills ...
... really *ARE* a drop in the bucket.
Oil in the Oceans
Since ALL of us Americans rely on the transport of oil through the region, it is the heighth of hypocrisy to blame the company that provides the oil for such tragedies associated with this necessity. Given as ocean populations seem to have survived and adapted *forever* despite the severalfold and continual seepage of oil occurring naturally, it really is difficult to see the reaction to the Valdeze incident as anything but a dramatic overreaction.
Accidents will happen. Even if the captain hadn't been drinking on that particular day.
Responsibility is not a
factor, Evie? Why do huge corporations get a pass on the responsibility thing? The companies that transport the oil and crash the tankers must be held responsible for their actions, Evie. Facing your responsibilities is not just for pregnant girls.
Let them take out insurance against such accidents. Don't whine when your oil prices go up.
It should also be noted....
...that while volcanoes do short-term damage, the long-term effect of volcanic eruptions is usually beneficial to the environment.
The analogy is indeed ridiculous unless the volcano got drunk and started belching oil, and the volcano's employer spent years trying to shirk responsibility for cleaning up the mess.
It has been alleged that recovery has been complete, and
was better where efforts were not made to clean up. Please link to articles and photos that show that this is not the case. How do you know the effect has not been beneficial?
I'm just going to take a wild guess....
....that zillions of gallons of oil on the water, on the shore, and on the local wildlife is not good for the environment.
Please post a photo of YOUR horse and carriage. If you are
using oil, YOU are guilty of despoiling the environment.
BTW, that horse? Global warming. (Hint: flatulence)
Only if I'm pouring gallons of oil ON the horse.....
....and killing him with it. While drunk. Or was Hazelwood an environmental hero to you?
Hazelwood paid with his freedom
He's no hero, but he's no hardened, ruthless criminal either.
I guess your understanding of global warming needs a bit
of remediation. You might want to read up on greenhouse gases. I'll leave it to you to figure out where some of the hot gas comes from.
Oh I know....
....where the hot gas is coming from.
So do I. I'm glad you got the point.
Oil spills ...
... are only a small fraction of the oil that seeps into the sea. I'm not going to argue that it is beneficial to the environment, but the only reason it is as destructive as was portrayed is because of human development and industries that were effected. "Nature" recovers remarkably well.
..... tankers were double-hulled, such tragedies, and the economic hits on the people in the areas, could be avoided. Congress gave them 15 years to build new ships. But a an amendment was added to a Homeland Security bill that gave a looophole. I'll be surprised if it ever happens.
click here to email
The loophole ...
... if you want to call it that, is about WHERE the ships are built. From your link:
U.S. law has required that tankers traveling between U.S. ports be built in the United States. But last fall, U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., slipped a measure into a homeland-security bill that could save some oil carriers millions, allowing them to get waivers to use cheaper, and perhaps older, foreign ships until new tankers are built.
This has no bearing on the 2015 deadline mandating double hulled boats.
Heck, SS insolvency is only a few years out past this deadline and you don't see the obstructionists in the Congress showing much urgency in doing anything to fix it now. I don't see why oil companies should be expected to expedite billions in costs. They've got ten more years to comply, and it would be economic suidice for them to phase out on any accelerated schedule. I don't know of any subsidies to the industry so there is no doubt the conversion will be accompanied by significant price increases pay the bill. The American consumer -- environmentalists included and often among the most vocal -- won't have that!
I think the point was ...
... that man-made disasters have historically been overblown and the reaction overly punitive.
One member here still boycotts Exxon because of that spill, when doing so acknowledges that this member was a consumer of Exxon prior to the ACCIDENT. It could easily have been any other oil company transporting oil through the region that had an irresponsible employee. We are all using the oil coming through that route and others so to penalize the supplier for the risks inherent in such transport. It was an opportunity for the various environmental organizations to whip up emotional backlash at Exxon when it is doubtful many of them passed up a private jet trip to the area to assess the damage or solicit funding for their organizations at locales far removed. I recall in the old SE someone posted a link to pictures of the area showing a remarkable recovery.
Kyoto is another example of an overly punitive bandaid. The economic cost of the CO2 reductions that could be achieved is vast. The CO2 reductions are a drop in the bucket when all sources are considered.
No, I don't think the fact that nature is powerful and at times ruthless gives us carte blanche to be careless. But I do believe it is counter to human well being to unduly punish those producing what we all want and use.
do they boycott the other 5
March 1989: The Exxon Valdez is grounded and spilled 38,800 tons of crude oil into Prince William Sound in worst spill in US history not world it ranks 6th overall
(NT) Maybe that member can answer your question.
I believe I'm the ''mystery boycotter''
And no, I didn't boycott the other 5 and I don't even boycott Exxon anymore; it's just not practical where I live. Most of the gas stations convenient to me are either Exxon or Mobil.
For the record, I wasn't boycotting because there was a spill. I was boycotting because of what I felt was Exxon's reprehensible behavior in the aftermath of that spill. If they'd expended as much time and energy cleaning up the mess as they spent trying to get out of doing it, the area would have recovered a lot more quickly than it has.
I was not trying to call you out..
if you boycott the other 5 then i could give a little respect
like I said I was not trying to call you out..
It is just why the others are not held as accountable?
The U.S. government publicly requested compensation from Mexico for damages associated with the spill without first entering into negotiations with the Mexican Government. Mexico denied being financially responsible for damages incurred, and refused to help pay cleanup expenses to the U.S.\\Officials reported that tourism along the Texas beaches dropped by 60% during the course of the spill.
Thanks to Red Adair and the US tax payers
this was stopped by Red Adair
I know you weren't. No worries.
I was being called out, but not by you.
All I can tell you is that I saw a company behaving in a way that I found extremely distasteful, and chose to exercise my disapproval by not purchasing their products for a number of years.
Ahh, where's Bob's ...
... collectivist attitude about nobody smelting their own Mercedes when we need it? Exxon was but one company providing something we all use and demand a steady supply of. Unless you think they intended for this to happen, this disaster could have been dealt with as other natural disasters in terms of the cleanup. As an alternative, I suppose the oil companies could take out huge oil spill insurance policies in which case the cost is passed on to the consumer. Either way, it really is the consumer that eventually pays for the risks of the energy we consume, and it shouldn't be any other way. If you faced the persecution that Exxon did following this spill, you would probably fight it if for no other reason than to avoid setting a bad precedent.
If it was OK for government to bailout the airlines after 9-11, it would have been more than appropriate for government to "bail out" Exxon from this. I see no difference. Again, unless of course you believe Exxon intended for this to happen. Are the airlines beeing severely fined every time a pilot is caught to have been drinking?
A story on single-hull ships from 2003
...But halfway through that phase-out period, only seven of nearly two dozen tankers offloading oil here from Alaska's North Slope have dual hulls. Of those, only two are new. ...
...The tanker group that carries oil-giant BP's crude has five new double-hull ships under construction at a cost of $1 billion. The first is expected to be operating next year....
So beginning just a year after the halfway mark, the first of five 200 million dollar double hull ships will be in the water. Too bad one had to wait until so much later in the article to learn how much was in the works.
Given the high costs of converting over, it would be economic suicide for the companies to switch over much sooner. One would think that if the environment was such an overriding concern of the detractors, they would push to have the government subsidize the costs of the newer ships so that they may be put in use faster. However I have no doubt they would decry these "payouts to Big Oil" -- especially if Bush were to do anything to incentivize the industry. I also fully expect the critics to be among the first to whine when energy prices go up to accomodate the costs of building these new ships.
It comes as no surprise to me that the penalized Exxon-Mobil isn't in the forefront replacing its ships. It's hard to come up with the spare billion when one is defending oneself from no end of lawsuits and cleanup costs.
Meanwhile, we all moan and groan when the price of gas and heating oil goes up!
Let us now weep for Exxon
I don't care if they have 100 billion in cash
The reason they do is they are well managed company. Unlike the crappy airlines the taxpayer keeps having to bail out over and over and over ...
The captain of the Valdez paid for his part with his freedom. Unless you believe Exxon hired a drunkard and told him to drink that day I don't beleive they are responsible any more than you or I are for using the fuel in the first place.
Your suggestion that they buy tankers they might not even need by the time they are built demonstrates why you aren't a corporate exec.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)